Thursday 27 February 2014

Unit 6 Assignment 3 opinionated blog post

A lot of video games have been linked to negative behaviour, for example there is a scene in Grand Theft Auto 5 where the players are made to torture someone. It's quite an in-depth torture scene and you get to chose from a range of options on how to torture this person. This cause an outrage in the eyes of the public. People saw it as really really inappropriate and thought that it could spark an idea in peoples heads on how to torture someone for real.

In an Article discussing this topic (X) Alison Sherratt, president of the Lecturers and Teachers Association, insists such extreme violence should not be included in video games.

She said: "Up until now we’ve been warning of the dangers of children seeing these games but saying it’s the parents responsibility to keep children away from these video games. But this scene takes things a step too far and the games makers need to consider what they are producing. Children in our playgrounds are displaying more violence and we have conducted polls and found they are viewing games like GTA. My concern is that little brother or sister walk in to the room and start watching something like this because an older brother is playing it. They don’t understand the difference between reality and fiction because it’s so awfully graphic and real. and they do copy it. They imitate what they see and this scene is taking it way too far"

Another video game that has been linked to real life negative behaviour is Call of Duty. A man called Anders Breivik massacred a lot of people. When put on trial he said that he trained for shooting attacks by playing Call of Duty. Obviously this quote blew up in the Media industry because it back up the statement that playing video games makes people violent. Here is the article (X) This man was already mentally unstable before playing Call of Duty so it is not 100% true that it was Call of Duty that caused this man to go on a rampage. But some people are saying it aided him or pushed him in that direction.

In this article a woman called Laura St. John says that Violent video games are bad for your kids. (X) She makes eight points which can mainly be summed up in that she thinks that it de-sensetizes you to violence so that you start to think that it's okay. It rewards you for killing people, gives you a feeling of success. One of her points are that swearing is also seen mainly in a violent game, she says: "The first time one of my sons was exposed to a violent game, I learned quickly that he was guilty after he said, "Oh, sh@#!" Enough said."

Another point is that they usually resolve conflict through violence: "Violent video games show kids how to express themselves physically, in a violent way. It's already way easier for a child to push another child when they're angry than to express their emotions and resolve a conflict through words. My boys have their fair share of quarrels, but I don't want them to learn they should resolve conflicts by hurting each other."

In another article (X) a guy talks about how he thinks video games CAN be bad for you. So not just violent video games but video games as whole. One the points he makes is that they can hurt relationships. 

He says: "There's often a direct correlation with the amount of time spent playing video games, and the amount of time spent engaging in a quality relationship. In the most extreme example I could find, there was a couple that was so consumed with playing video games that they ended up neglecting their 3 children — to the point that they were malnourished, naked, and covered in their own feces. Although that's an extreme case, I still think there's something to be said about people who spend the majority of their free time playing video games. My guess is that they're probably not dating or pursuing a meaningful relationship in their free time."

There are a lot of video games out there that can have a positive effect on people for example, educational games. There are a lot of education games out there on the market that are designed for kids and adults. Basically all ages.

Big Brain Academy is one these. This is an educational game that helps children (and adults?) with lots of things. It's a puzzle type game that asks you different questions. Some questions relate to Maths. Which is a good thing. People have had a very positive response to this game.

Another video game platform type thing that people have had a preferred reading to is Wii Fit. Wii Fit is a board that you have to stand on and perform a wide variety of moments at different degrees of difficulty. A lot of people like this game because it gets them moving and it's had a lot of good press because it's affordable and gets people to exercise in the house without having to go to a gym. It gets them motivated because they know that they don't have to leave the house. Some people may be self conscious going to a gym so they take comfort in knowing that they can get the same level of fitness in without having to leave the house and pay for a gym.

My opinion is that some video games are totally fine.

I personally think that Grand Theft Auto is fine. Some scenes should be toned down a bit (like the torture scene) but really the whole car chase and gunning people down thing is totally fine with me. You would have to be an absolute idiot to see that on a screen and then go and think that it's okay do to it in real life. When you shoot someone randomly on GTA it's not like there are no repercussions the police do come after you. So people should see that and just know (if they didn't already before) that doing something that's against the law will mean that you have to deal with the police.

Education games I think are great. I think that if you have someone who is struggling with their school work (if they are quite young) then they should definitely play a game like Big Brain Academy. It can 100% help people learn better and in a fun way. Even puzzle games like Professor Layton and the Curious Village that aren't specifically linked to maths or something are good because they challenge the brain and get it working and use to thinking deeply.

Fitness games like the Wii Fit are great because if you're a really self conscious person and don't have the confidence to join a gym then you can just get a Wii Fit (which is relatively inexpensive) and exercise from home. It's also fun and you can make games out it. You can also track your body weight and measurements and stuff on it. So it just makes it a lot easier than going to a gym that could be like an hour away form your house. You can just stay inside where there is no one there and feel comfortable working out.

Now some games I have no idea why they are made, for example there is a game called KZ Manager which is where you are a Nazi and you and basically manage a concentration camp. By this I mean you decide when Jewish people get gassed amongst other things. Games like this anger me. There was this awful time in History that we don't really want to remember and then games like this are made. It's disgusting and disrespectful to the people who had to suffer through that period of time. Their offspring (if they had any and if they are alive today) would see something like this and it could emotionally destroy them. It's just awful and I really don't think that games like this should even be allowed to be released and if they are released illegally then they should immediately be taken down.

Basically I think that the effects model CAN be applied to Video Games but it shouldn't because it's a stupid theory and it basically insults the audience. It's saying that people are so dumb and passive when watching TV/Films/Playing video games, that they see things and automatically go and do them. They have a 'see it - do it' mentality.

Now for some people this may be the case, but those people are stupid. For example the people that see something on a video game, whether it be shooting a passerby or stealing a car, then think "Hey I can do that" just shouldn't even be considered when talking about video games because if they are that dumb and mentally messed up, then they shouldn't be allowed to play violent video games in the first place.

Most of us, most meaning, every single normal person out there that has ever played a video game, hasn't seen something violent and thought "wow I should totally do that" and if you have then you need to go seek professional help. When people are playing a video game they do it purely for entertainment. You may be slightly passive when playing a game mainly because of how much you immerse yourself in the game and forget about the outside world, but this doesn't mean that you suck up every single opinion or action that the game is showing/giving off. People are much smarter than Scientists or theory people(?) give credit for. There has been no evidence of a video game directly linking to violence. People in the media may twist it and say that the video game caused this, which would back up the effects model. But I can say with certainty that it's not ever been proved.

People could be influenced by the video games but the video games wouldn't ever be a DIRECT cause for this. In most cases (or all) the person who committed a real life violent act had something wrong with them before even beginning to play said violent video game.

LINKS TO ARTICLES REFERENCED IN THE POST:

1) http://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/staying-in/video-games/gta-5-torture-row-teachers-2278689
2) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/19/anders-breivik-call-of-duty
3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-st-john/8-ways-violent-games_b_3875846.html
4) http://www.familyresource.com/lifestyles/mental-environment/top-5-reasons-video-games-are-bad-for-you
5) http://www.scotsman.com/news/couple-let-childen-starve-to-play-computer-games-1-1092586


IMPROVEMENTS

I do agree with the uses and gratifications model. I think that it is a lot less insulting to the audience than the effects model and that it is more updated and makes more sense. There have been more successful reliable studies done on the uses and gratifications model.

No I don't think that the articles prove that the effects model is fact because all of the articles don't specifically say that the video game was the direct cause. They all make it sound like that but if you actually read closer/do a bit of research then you will see this is not the case. Thus disproving the effects model.


For the violent games I have picked I think that people respond in violent way for lots of other reasons. The violent video games may of helped but they weren't a 100% cause of their violent behaviour. For example the guy that killed many people after playing Call of Duty only did this due to a brain injury. Like I said there has been no studies where violent behaviour

I think that the audience would definitely respond positively to the games I mentioned before (Wii fit, Brain training academy). They would use these games for fitness and education. Younger kids would play the education games rather than adults. But they can be played by anyone. I doubt there will be anyone out there with a negative response to the games.

I think that we should put warnings before all violent video games. We already warn people by putting a rating on it, it's not the sellers fault if parents buy the games for their kids anyway regardless of the rating. We shouldn't ban them all because there are lots of people out there that get enjoyment from playing these types of games and don't do anything awful after playing it. They play it purely for entertainment. There would be a lot of people put out of a job.






Friday 14 February 2014

Individual Writeup

What sort of information I think is most useful?: 

Qualitative/Quantitative

I think that Quantitate is more important to the gaming industry. I think this because if you have a big company that want to know if their game is good or not they aren't going to be wanting to sieve through loads of opinions made by people. They just want to see the hard data that is easy to analyse. You can get clear results from graph charts. Also the facts can be used in their favour when advertising the game. You can change the facts manipulate the facts to make it seem like more people enjoyed your game. For example if you had 30 people playing your game and the majority didn't like it you could just make it like 70% of people liked my game. Overall that looks good but if you do the maths you can see that it's actually not that great.

However, I would say that Qualitative data is good to use if you want to look a lot at the opinions that people have. Say for example you've made a beta version of a game and released it to play. Then you would want to look at Qualitative data so you can read in-depth about what people liked and didn't like and make changes accordingly.

Which form of Audience research was most valuable to you?:

Profiling/Focus Groups:

I thought that the focus groups were more valuable to my group. I think this because you can see clearly what their reactions to the game were (because we recorded them whilst playing it.) We asked them questions during the playthrough of the game. This helped us because we got to hear their answers and it was fresh in their mind while they were playing it. Also we got to see their sincere reactions. They couldn't exactly fake it. The Profiling wasn't that useful to my group because we didn't know 100% if the people that we researched online were actually the ones that the game was meant to target. Whereas seeing the people that fit out gamer profile play the game in real life and responding positively we knew for sure that it was definitely targeted at them.


Improvements

Focus Groups:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMmjjAZpFGs - Jack Lee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn-9LY-3yQc - Freddie Poole
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehLl1cbduCs - Aaron Taylor



Summary:

The majority of the participants in the focus group said they enjoyed playing Slender. When asked why they said because it gives them an adrenalin rush. This is a common theme amongst Horror Gamers. We know that the reason Horror games are so popular is because the players get scared when playing it and it's enjoyable to them because of the adrenaline rush given. The majority of the participants in the focus group also said that they graphics of the game didn't bother them. They felt neutral towards them. I can assume this is because they were focusing mainly on the game and not so much on the graphics. From this we can get that as long as a game is immersive enough, like it's really good at getting you immersed in the game (At the start of Slender it tells you to play in a dark room with headphones on so that you are immersed in the game) So as long as a game is good enough to get you to focus on it and only it with no distractions, the graphics become kind of obsolete. Obviously they do have to at least be good but they don't have to be HD movie quality for said players to enjoy the game. Two out of there people said Slender man did not scare them after a while. This was because they had become use to the game. We can gather from this that if a Horror game becomes too repetitive it loses some of it's scare element. The minority in the group who said they did get scared every time Slender popped up, said this because when asked if the game targets him personally, he said 'No I don't like Horror games' But when asked if the game targets him as a Psychographic (Age wise/Gender wise etc) He said yes. We can see from this that the game does target Males aged 15-25+ but you would have to at least have a slight liking for Horror games or just being scared in general.

Overall I would say that the focus group was a success and we learnt a lot from it and got a lot of information backed up by actual proof.

The negatives of the focus group were that we should of gotten more people to play the game maybe a girl just so we could back up the statement made that girls probably wouldn't like this game.

Also we could of asked them to give more detailed responses so that we could write more and have more information. Rather than just getting one word answers from them.

It took them a while to get into the game (to find a page and actually start the bit where Slenderman pops up) so there was a lot of waiting around and people could of gotten

The positives of this focus group are that we found out a lot of information from it and we have a better understanding of how this game targets the audience and evidence to back up our target profile claims.

The bit where Slenderman pops up when you get the page targets the gamer profile. We know this because we know that Horror games are mainly aimed at guys. The dark gloomy atmosphere doesn't really appeal to girls. Girls aren't seen as liking horror games. Out of all the guys we got to play the game when we asked them if they think this game targets them as an age range and gender they all said yes. We know that it targets them as an age range because older people wouldn't really see this as a fun game to play. From searching Youtube things like 'Playthrough of Slender' all of the videos are of men and around the age range that we think is the gamer profile. They all fit the game profile. The socioeconomic scale as well because know that these people who are doing the play throughs aren't exactly rich. We can tell that they are of middle class or lower class. This fits the profile. The game is for free and can be downloaded on a computer, this is how we know it targets the socio economic profile. It's easy and cheap to get a hold of. Most middle class people now have a computer or some access to the internet.

Link: http://www.joystiq.com/2014/02/21/pbs-game-show-asks-what-is-a-gamer/

Summary: We don't need to give labels to what a 'typical' gamer is. And that anyone who plays games is a typical gamer. Even if they aren't playing the typical type of games you would expect to see gamers play.

Which way of describing an audience is more useful in your opinion (demographic, psychographic or socio economic scale)? Why do you think this?
I think that describing the Audience as a demographic is more useful because it helps us get an overview of everything about the Audience. Rather than psychographics or socio-economic scale because this just looks at one aspect of the Audience. Whereas if you look at a demographic you are looking into age, gender, race, psychographics AND socio-economic scale. So you get more information than you would if you were to just look at the psychographics or socio-economic scale.

I think that focus groups are useful to the industry because you can use them to get feedback on how your game is and what you can do to make it better. It's real people giving real opinions so you know that it's basically straight from the 'horses mouth' and nothing has been changed. People can be biased but if you get your right target audience for the group then they are unlikely to be. Focus groups are also easy to conduct and definitely worth it for the amount of stuff you get from it. They can also be cheap as in you wouldn't have to pay the people anything if they definitely want to be there. But even if you would have to pay them it shouldn't be that much. You can record their reactions and see them in real time so you get a better understanding of what people think of your game. 


Monday 10 February 2014

Unit 6 Assignment 3 notes

Assignment due in: 28th of Feb 

Why do you play video games?

I play video games for fun and to pass the time. People play it to experience things that you can't experience in real life. You get a virtual reality. It's competitive. It's a feeling of accomplishment.

This Assignment is all about the effect that video games have on the audience.

Should be able to find a lot of articles giving bad reviews about video games (Violent games make violent people)

Need to write an opinionated article

Lay out what your argument is. You have to teach people in the first half of it about what people say. (Find articles about it.)

Then after tell them what YOU think.

EFFECTS MODEL: The article has to come to an opinion on the effects model.

First bullet point is a worksheet that we will do in class.
Have to pull together a list of video games that have been linked to negative behaviour.
When finding oppositional readings look at news articles, look at politicians.
Then go and do some research about positive video games. (Educational games, Brain Training, Driving School, Wii Fit.)
You can have a preferred reading to some games but an oppositional reading to other games.


Negative effects

Call of Duty.

The guns
The police being shot
Men, Women and Children being shot
The blood
The language used
The ending
The things being blown up
The constant screaming

Unit 6 Assignment 3 prezi notes:

What violence can you recall seeing in media products?
Breaking Bad some guy getting beat up.

What do you define as a violent act?
Something done to intentionally hurt someone whether it be physical or emotionally.


Gratuitous vs. Informative

Informative: Does the violence teach us anything, is there a purpose?

Gratuitous: Just there for the audience to enjoy. Violence is there for entertainment purposes only.

Desensitisation: You have seen that much violence it doesn't bother you anymore. You become desensitised to it.

How did you feel when watching it?

I was confused as to why this was made into a game.

What was your reaction?

Laughter and shock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eve3hDAh9MU

EFFECTS MODEL

Effects model is a theory. A theory is an idea, means that it CAN be wrong.

They believe that the media effects your behaviour. They believe that our society is made up of individuals who are easily influenced by the media. The media would alter their behaviour. The media would DIRECTLY effect the way they behave. They saw the media as a syringe. The effects model is sometimes called 'The hypodermic needle' or 'Hypodermic syringe' theory. Because it injects you with the ideas of the media.

Passive: Sits there like a spud. It just happens to you.

Maybe for some people you might think 'If they already have some issues that they MIGHT be more prone to that behaviour'

Boy kills Grandma due to video game: (X)

Moral Panic means creating a panic about something that is seen to be damaging to our society.

Video games breed violent behaviour, society looks for a scapegoat. No conclusive proof.

Crimes are so mad for us to contemplate that we look for a scape goat. Meaning we look for someone to blame.

There is no proof that video games are directly linked to violence.

Positive effects

Video games that are good for you:

Call of Duty helps improve eyesight. 
Big Brain academy helps your memory.
Video games make people more creative. For example, Minecraft. 
Sprax cures depression. 
XBox Kinect makes you work out at home. 
Nintendogs teaches you how to look after a dog.
Wii Fit helps you exercise at your house. (Best video game console for improving fitness)
Cooking mama teaches you how to cook.
Super Mario brothers improves motor skills.
Forza improves reaction time. 

Oppositional reading of video games (X)




Friday 7 February 2014

Unit 29 Assignment 2

The Vaccines - Norgaard














Initial ideas

The video to be really upbeat and like easy to follow.

Style  of video

Maybe a narrative type video that has some speaking parts but that tells quite a simple story. If you listen to the song you can hear that the lyrics aren't very confusing like it doesn't use any things that mean something different. You don't really have to work out what is happening it is straight forward.

Style of the band

The style of the band are indie.

What's happening

I want it to be


What techniques you will use

The techniques I will use are

Thursday 6 February 2014

Unit 6 Assignment 2

Reviews:






Slender is the scariest game I've ever played and it's free 5/5- pixel pulse 


Some of these review sites are quite professional looking whilst others aren't. For example in the first screenshot you can see that it comes from a well known site (Metacritic) whereas the ThePixelPulse isn't as well known therefore people don't really give it a chance or take in the opinions given fully.

In Metacritic the opinions are given by normal unprofessional everyday people who aren't being influenced by the industry, such as when certain reviewers are given the game for free purely for the purpose of reviewing it, this is what makes it reliable. 

They do give pros and cons in most of the reviews this shows that they've not just made up their mind about the game they've actually given it a chance or looked in-depth enough to critique it. 

Slender is not officially rated because it's an indie PC game. 

These scores are useful because it helps us see overall what people think about the game without having to go in-depth and read a 20 page review. It's good for quickly collecting data and seeing if it's a good game to make your focus group play. Also on some reviews people have left their gender/age/location on it meaning that you get to see what people have played it and if they liked it. Which again will help you put together your focus group.

The gameplay is simple and the objective is easy understandable. This is why I think it's aimed at males. Guys are sometimes seen as quite dumb who can't keep their focus on one thing long enough so the fact that it's not a very complicated game means that it would appeal to men more because they don't have to put much thought into playing it. It's been recognised that Male gamers usually play games in the evening/at nighttime. This would prove my point in that guys would play it more because in the evening or at least at nighttime you don't want to put much thought into things.  

(x)

Above is a screenshot of a male Youtuber playing Slender. As you can see this game has a lot of Horror content which is why I think that it would be more male oriented. The reason for this is that girls aren't usually seen as playing Horror games due to the fact that they are viewed as being scared of them.

(x)

If you go on Youtube and search 'Slender play through' you'll only get a few actual girl gamers playing the game. Most of the other ones are guys making their girlfriends play it. 

From a video called 'Teens React to Slender' you can clearly see that out of all of the females who were on that show, none of them have ever played it before. Out of all the males on that show 3/5 had played it before. 

(X)


Thinkbox Audience Profiles
Most of the people seen playing slender are male within the age of 16-34. As you can see the average gamers is 34 but this game is different and opened to a different audience profile.
The screenshots I have gathered are of Famous Youtubers all of the same age bracket which could prove the gamer profile but that could just show that majority of You tubers gamers are male.












The average game player is 37 years old and has been playing games for 12 years.When you first open the game you are thrown into this world, the only noises you hear are crickets, owls and your own footsteps. However, when collecting pages ominous music slowly builds up to intensify the situation, along with the sound of his footsteps becoming louder as you continue. This is one of the best features of Slender; the atmospheric music is able to set an amazingly tense situation. As you know you are being followed your anxiety starts to increase as you tend to panic when you cannot find any pages, knowing Slender Man is after you.

The socioeconomic scale of the people who play Slender are in grade D this means that they are semi and unskilled manual workers. But also a wide variety of different people play it. Everyone in the scale could play Slender but the people that mainly play do fit into the category D.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UwkQ5pUUKM






Slender fans are 12 years and over because they want to be scared of the slender so they can rate the game by themselves. For example if you look at this screen shot of a teenage boy (below) playing slender. This shows that they get scared bit they still want to carry on.


Slender is an indie game but became mainstream through social media. We know it's mainstream because of the fact that loads of popular Let's Players have done the game and uploaded them playing it. We can also see the download figures of just one website.



It was niche when it started out. We know this because of the fact that the game wasn't
produced by a big well paid company. It didn't have an official big release date it just eventually became popular.


Focus Group questions


1) Have you ever played Slender before?
2) Did you enjoy it?
3) Why did you enjoy it?
4) How did you feel when you were playing it?
5) Do you think the game targets you?
6) Would you recommend the game?
7) Did you like the graphics of the game?
8) Did you find any of it boring? (Walking aimlessly for long periods of time)
9) Did Slenderman ever not scare you when he popped up?

Focus Groups:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMmjjAZpFGs - Jack Lee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn-9LY-3yQc - Freddie Poole
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehLl1cbduCs - Aaron Taylor

Summary:

The majority of the participants in the focus group said they enjoyed playing Slender. When asked why they said because it gives them an adrenalin rush. This is a common theme amongst Horror Gamers. We know that the reason Horror games are so popular is because the players get scared when playing it and it's enjoyable to them because of the adrenaline rush given. The majority of the participants in the focus group also said that they graphics of the game didn't bother them. They felt neutral towards them. I can assume this is because they were focusing mainly on the game and not so much on the graphics. From this we can get that as long as a game is immersive enough, like it's really good at getting you immersed in the game (At the start of Slender it tells you to play in a dark room with headphones on so that you are immersed in the game) So as long as a game is good enough to get you to focus on it and only it with no distractions, the graphics become kind of obsolete. Obviously they do have to at least be good but they don't have to be HD movie quality for said players to enjoy the game. Two out of there people said Slenderman did not scare them after a while. This was because they had become use to the game. We can gather from this that if a Horror game becomes too repetitive it loses some of it's scare element. The minority in the group who said they did get scared everytime Slender popped up, said this because when asked if the game targets him personally, he said 'No I don't like Horror games' But when asked if the game targets him as a Psychographic (Age wise/Gender wise etc) He said yes. We can see from this that the game does target Males aged 15-25+ but you would have to at least have a slight liking for Horror games or just being scared in general.


Overall I would say that the focus group was a success and we learnt a lot from it and got a lot of information backed up by actual proof.


Wednesday 5 February 2014

Steph Character thing homework

What game am I doing: Slender Man

Review websites:

Metacritic (x):


ThePixelPulse (x): 




GameFAQs (x): 



All of these websites were pretty reliable because of the fact that they all had very indepth reviews that people would only of known about if they played the game.

These scores are useful because it helps us see overall what people think about the game without having to go in-depth and read a 20 page review. It's good for quickly collecting data and seeing if it's a good game to make your focus group play. Also on some reviews people have left their gender/age/location on it meaning that you get to see what people have played it and if they liked it. Which again will help you put together your focus group.

Monday 3 February 2014

Unit 6 Assignment 2 notes

Find out sales figures.
Find out what different viewers have scored it out of 10 etc.
Industry sources (stuff that's relevant to the gaming world) to the Go to more than one place to find out about it. (Game reviewer magazines, game websites. (IGN, Game Informer, Metacritic)
Who would use these sort of sites and why.
What the differences are between these sites, why they are useful.


Who is the audience classification?

Gamer profile:

Who is the person that plays that game. What do they look like. What are they interested in. Age, gender, socioeconomic ranking.

What is the socioeconomic scale? (Directly related to income. Like what sort of job you have|)

Is the game or the person belonging to a niche. (Small or select group)

Research why you think they are this age, gender, socioeconomic scale, psychographics. Why they fall into the category of niche or mainstreamers.

Expect a diary of research you can't just make up your gamer profile. Have to research everything.

Once you know who your gamer profile is. You do a focus group with them. Your focus group has to link directly to your profile.

Must prepare questions:

Questions should be about how much they enjoyed it. How they think the game targets them. (Detailed responses)

Small group, more than 2 less than 10.
q